Doctors' knowledge of patient radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging requested in the emergency department

Objective: To assess emergency department (ED) doctors' knowledge of radiation doses associated with diagnostic imaging and to describe their practice with regard to informing patients of risk. Design, participants and setting: Prospective, questionnaire-based observational study in May 2009 among all 110 doctors in the EDs of a 570-bed teaching hospital and a 200-bed district hospital. Main outcome measures: Percentage knowledge score; and frequency of discussing radiation risk with patients, based on responses to three scenarios rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS), where a score of 100 indicates doctors would always discuss it. Results: 96 doctors (87%) completed the questionnaire. The overall mean knowledge score was 40% (95% CI, 38%-43%). Senior doctors scored somewhat higher than junior doctors, but not significantly (42% v 39%; P = 0.75). Over three-quarters of doctors (78%) underestimated the lifetime risk of fatal cancer attributable to a single computed tomography scan of the abdomen. Most doctors (76%) reported never having had any formal training on risks to patients from radiation exposure. The frequency at which doctors would inform patients of the risk of radiation varied greatly depending on the clinical scenario (mean VAS scores, between 38 and 90). Conclusion: Emergency doctors in our sample had a varied knowledge of the risks from radiation exposure, but overall knowledge was poor. Staff should receive education, and the diagnostic imaging request process may need to include information on radiation doses and risks.Griffith Health, School of MedicineFull Tex

What is the effect of a formalised trauma tertiary survey procedure on missed injury rates in multi-trauma patients? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: Missed injury is commonly used as a quality indicator in trauma care. The trauma tertiary survey (TTS) has been proposed to reduce missed injuries. However a systematic review assessing the effect of the TTS on missed injury rates in trauma patients found only observational studies, only suggesting a possible increase in early detection and reduction in missed injuries, with significant potential biases. Therefore, more robust methods are necessary to test whether implementation of a formal TTS will increase early in-hospital injury detection, decrease delayed diagnosis and decrease missed injuries after hospital discharge. Methods/Design: We propose a cluster-randomised, controlled trial to evaluate trauma care enhanced with a formalised TTS procedure. Currently, 20 to 25% of trauma patients routinely have a TTS performed. We expect this to increase to at least 75%. The design is for 6,380 multi-trauma patients in approximately 16 hospitals recruited over 24 months. In the first 12 months, patients will be randomised (by hospital) and allocated 1:1 to receive either the intervention (Group 1) or usual care (Group 2). The recruitment for the second 12 months will entail Group 1 hospitals continuing the TTS, and the Group 2 hospitals beginning it to enable estimates of the persistence of the intervention. The intervention is complex: implementation of formal TTS form, small group education, and executive directive to mandate both. Outcome data will be prospectively collected from (electronic) medical records and patient (telephone follow-up) questionnaires. Missed injuries will be adjudicated by a blinded expert panel. The primary outcome is missed injuries after hospital discharge; secondary outcomes are maintenance of the intervention effect, in-hospital missed injuries, tertiary survey performance rate, hospital and ICU bed days, interventions required for missed injuries, advanced diagnostic imaging requirements, readmissions to hospital, days of work and quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and mortality. Discussion: The findings of this study may alter the delivery of international trauma care. If formal TTS is (cost-) effective this intervention should be implemented widely. If not, where already partly implemented, it should be abandoned. Study findings will be disseminated widely to relevant clinicians and health funders.Griffith Health, School of MedicineFull Tex

The effect of tertiary surveys on missed injuries in trauma:A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Trauma tertiary surveys (TTS) are advocated to reduce the rate of missed injuries in hospitalized trauma patients. Moreover, the missed injury rate can be a quality indicator of trauma care performance. Current variation of the definition of missed injury restricts interpretation of the effect of the TTS and limits the use of missed injury for benchmarking. Only a few studies have specifically assessed the effect of the TTS on missed injury. We aimed to systematically appraise these studies using outcomes of two common definitions of missed injury rates and long-term health outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was performed. An electronic search (without language or publication restrictions) of the Cochrane Library, Medline and Ovid was used to identify studies assessing TTS with short-term measures of missed injuries and long-term health outcomes. ‘Missed injury’ was defined as either: Type I) any injury missed at primary and secondary survey and detected by the TTS; or Type II) any injury missed at primary and secondary survey and missed by the TTS, detected during hospital stay. Two authors independently selected studies. Risk of bias for observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Ten observational studies met our inclusion criteria. None was randomized and none reported long-term health outcomes. Their risk of bias varied considerably. Nine studies assessed Type I missed injury and found an overall rate of 4.3%. A single study reported Type II missed injury with a rate of 1.5%. Three studies reported outcome data on missed injuries for both control and intervention cohorts, with two reporting an increase in Type I missed injuries (3% vs. 7%, P<0.01), and one a decrease in Type II missed injuries (2.4% vs. 1.5%, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Overall Type I and Type II missed injury rates were 4.3% and 1.5%. Routine TTS performance increased Type I and reduced Type II missed injuries. However, evidence is sub-optimal: few observational studies, non-uniform outcome definitions and moderate risk of bias. Future studies should address these issues to allow for the use of missed injury rate as a quality indicator for trauma care performance and benchmarking

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of invasive versus conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax

INTRODUCTION: Current management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) is variable, with little evidence from randomised controlled trials to guide treatment. Guidelines emphasise intervention in many patients, which involves chest drain insertion, hospital admission and occasionally surgery. However, there is evidence that conservative management may be effective and safe, and it may also reduce the risk of recurrence. Significant questions remain regarding the optimal initial approach to the management of PSP

Conservative versus interventional treatment for spontaneous pneumothorax

BACKGROUND: Whether conservative management is an acceptable alternative to interventional management for uncomplicated, moderate-to-large primary spontaneous pneumothorax is unknown. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial, we recruited patients 14 to 50 years of age with a first-known, unilateral, moderate-to-large primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients were randomly assigned to immediate interventional management of the pneumothorax (intervention group) or a conservative observational approach (conservative-management group) and were followed for 12 months. The primary outcome was lung reexpansion within 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 316 patients underwent randomization (154 patients to the intervention group and 162 to the conservative-management group). In the conservative-management group, 25 patients (15.4%) underwent interventions to manage the pneumothorax, for reasons prespecified in the protocol, and 137 (84.6%) did not undergo interventions. In a complete-case analysis in which data were not available for 23 patients in the intervention group and 37 in the conservative-management group, reexpansion within 8 weeks occurred in 129 of 131 patients (98.5%) with interventional management and in 118 of 125 (94.4%) with conservative management (risk difference, -4.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.6 to 0.5; P = 0.02 for noninferiority); the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval was within the prespecified noninferiority margin of -9 percentage points. In a sensitivity analysis in which all missing data after 56 days were imputed as treatment failure (with reexpansion in 129 of 138 patients [93.5%] in the intervention group and in 118 of 143 [82.5%] in the conservative-management group), the risk difference of -11.0 percentage points (95% CI, -18.4 to -3.5) was outside the prespecified noninferiority margin. Conservative management resulted in a lower risk of serious adverse events or pneumothorax recurrence than interventional management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary outcome was not statistically robust to conservative assumptions about missing data, the trial provides modest evidence that conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax was noninferior to interventional management, with a lower risk of serious adverse events. (Funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others; PSP Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12611000184976.)

Epidemiology, prehospital care and outcomes of patients arriving by ambulance with dyspnoea: An observational study

Background: This study aimed to determine epidemiology and outcome for patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) with shortness of breath who were transported by ambulance. Methods: This was a planned sub-study of a prospective, interrupted time series cohort study conducted at three time points in 2014 and which included consecutive adult patients presenting to the ED with dyspnoea as a main symptom. For this sub-study, additional inclusion criteria were presentation to an ED in Australia or New Zealand and transport by ambulance. The primary outcomes of interest are the epidemiology and outcome of these patients. Analysis was by descriptive statistics and comparisons of proportions. Results: One thousand seven patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 74 years (IQR 61-68) and 46.1 % were male. There was a high rate of co-morbidity and chronic medication use. The most common ED diagnoses were lower respiratory tract infection (including pneumonia, 22.7 %), cardiac failure (20.5%) and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (19.7 %). ED disposition was hospital admission (including ICU) for 76.4 %, ICU admission for 5.6 % and death in ED in 0.9 %. Overall in-hospital mortality among admitted patients was 6.5 %. Discussion: Patients transported by ambulance with shortness of breath make up a significant proportion of ambulance caseload and have high comorbidity and high hospital admission rate. In this study, >60 % were accounted for by patients with heart failure, lower respiratory tract infection or COPD, but there were a wide range of diagnoses. This has implications for service planning, models of care and paramedic training. Conclusion: This study shows that patients transported to hospital by ambulance with shortness of breath are a complex and seriously ill group with a broad range of diagnoses. Understanding the characteristics of these patients, the range of diagnoses and their outcome can help inform training and planning of services

an individual participant data meta-analysis

Background The impact of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) on influenza-related pneumonia (IRP) is not established. Our objective was to investigate the association between NAI treatment and IRP incidence and outcomes in patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection. Methods A worldwide meta- analysis of individual participant data from 20 634 hospitalised patients with laboratory-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 (n = 20 021) or clinically diagnosed (n = 613) ‘pandemic influenza’. The primary outcome was radiologically confirmed IRP. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using generalised linear mixed modelling, adjusting for NAI treatment propensity, antibiotics and corticosteroids. Results Of 20 634 included participants, 5978 (29·0%) had IRP; conversely, 3349 (16·2%) had confirmed the absence of radiographic pneumonia (the comparator). Early NAI treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) versus no NAI was not significantly associated with IRP [adj. OR 0·83 (95% CI 0·64–1·06; P = 0·136)]. Among the 5978 patients with IRP, early NAI treatment versus none did not impact on mortality [adj. OR = 0·72 (0·44–1·17; P = 0·180)] or likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 1·17 (0·71–1·92; P = 0·537)], but early treatment versus later significantly reduced mortality [adj. OR = 0·70 (0·55–0·88; P = 0·003)] and likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 0·68 (0·54–0·85; P = 0·001)]. Conclusions Early NAI treatment of patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection versus no treatment did not reduce the likelihood of IRP. However, in patients who developed IRP, early NAI treatment versus later reduced the likelihood of mortality and needing ventilatory support

Tertiary Survey Performance in a Regional Trauma Hospital Without a Dedicated Trauma Service

Background: Initial management of trauma patients is focused on identifying life- and limb-threatening injuries and may lead to missed injuries. A tertiary survey can minimise the number and effect of missed injuries and involves a physical re-examination and review of all investigations within 24 h of admission. There is little information on current practice of tertiary survey performance in hospitals without a dedicated trauma service. We aimed to determine the rate of tertiary survey performance and the detail of documentation as well as the baseline rate of missed injuries. Methods: We performed a retrospective, descriptive study of all multitrauma patients who presented to an Australian level II regional trauma centre without a dedicated trauma service between May 2008 and February 2009. A medical records review was conducted to determine tertiary survey performance and missed injury rate. Results: Of 252 included trauma patients, 20% (n = 51) had a tertiary survey performed. A total of nine missed injuries were detected in eight patients (3.2%). Of the multiple components of the tertiary survey, most were poorly documented. Documentation was more comprehensive in the subgroup of patients who did have a formal tertiary survey. Conclusions: Tertiary survey performance was poor, as indicated by low documentation rates. The baseline missed injury rate was comparable to previous that of retrospective studies, although in this study an underestimation of true missed injury rates is likely. Implementing a formal, institutional tertiary survey may lead to improved tertiary survey performance and documentation and therefore improved trauma care in hospitals without a dedicated trauma service

The Australasian Resuscitation In Sepsis Evaluation : fluids or vasopressors in emergency department sepsis (ARISE FLUIDS), a multi-centre observational study describing current practice in Australia and New Zealand

Objectives: To describe haemodynamic resuscitation practices in ED patients with suspected sepsis and hypotension. Methods: This was a prospective, multicentre, observational study conducted in 70 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand between September 2018 and January 2019. Consecutive adults presenting to the ED during a 30-day period at each site, with suspected sepsis and hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg) despite at least 1000 mL fluid resuscitation, were eligible. Data included baseline demographics, clinical and laboratory variables and intravenous fluid volume administered, vasopressor administration at baseline and 6- and 24-h post-enrolment, time to antimicrobial administration, intensive care admission, organ support and in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 4477 patients were screened and 591 were included with a mean (standard deviation) age of 62 (19) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 15.2 (6.6) and a median (interquartile range) systolic blood pressure of 94 mmHg (87–100). Median time to first intravenous antimicrobials was 77 min (42–148). A vasopressor infusion was commenced within 24 h in 177 (30.2%) patients, with noradrenaline the most frequently used (n = 138, 78%). A median of 2000 mL (1500–3000) of intravenous fluids was administered prior to commencing vasopressors. The total volume of fluid administered from pre-enrolment to 24 h was 4200 mL (3000–5661), with a range from 1000 to 12 200 mL. Two hundred and eighteen patients (37.1%) were admitted to an intensive care unit. Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.2% (95% confidence interval 4.4–8.5%). Conclusion: Current resuscitation practice in patients with sepsis and hypotension varies widely and occupies the spectrum between a restricted volume/earlier vasopressor and liberal fluid/later vasopressor strategy